He did relinquish some power permanently, specifically free will. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think anything in the Bible indicates that free will was rescinded.

i did'nt know that, thanks.

Ah, and why I referred to the theologyonline.com debate in the OP, since Open View theology rejects the idea that God is outside of time! So this is where things can get surprising, and shocking for many Christians (with screams of heresy and burn him at the stake ). What if God does not exist outside of time? Then your logical dilemma goes away! (you could claim God could go back in time and revoke the seal Ã¢â‚¬â€œ but notice that nowhere in scripture is there even the slightest hint that God ever goes back in time, something to keep in mind when considering traversing the opposite direction, the future).

In Christ,Fred

I think you are on solid ground logically, for God to bound by time in a similar way to ourselves, it will, as you say solve many problems regarding free will and accountability.

Perhaps there is another explanation re god being Ã¢â‚¬Ëœoutside of timeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, could it not just be another way of expressing immortality, or, even though god cannot see the future, he can predict the outcome with such great accuracy, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s as near as?

If we accept OSAS, then there is no way a Christian could ever willfully choose to not repent of an evil he commits. It implies he is predestined and does not have free will in the matter.

When a believer sins, he is under status quo "divine discipline" until he "confesses" his sins to God, as in 1st John 1:9. We can sin, and if we never confess those sins, then we may end up sinning unto death. That does not mean you loose your salvation, only your life in time, and possibly reward in eternity.

Let's consider Saul: Saul was a terrible believer, and he died sinning against God. What was his eternal fate?

1SA 28:16 And Samuel said, "Why then do you ask me, since the Lord has departed from you and has become your adversary?1SA 28:17 "And the Lord has done accordingly as He spoke through me; for the Lord has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, to David.1SA 28:18 "As you did not obey the Lord and did not execute His fierce wrath on Amalek, so the Lord has done this thing to you this day.1SA 28:19 "Moreover the Lord will also give over Israel along with you into the hands of the Philistines, therefore tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. Indeed the Lord will give over the army of Israel into the hands of the Philistines!"

Samuel told Saul that he was going to be "with him". Samuel was saved, and so Saul and his sons joined him in paradice when they died. Saul did not loose his salvation, and from what I can tell, he did not confess his sins before he died.

So that is my question to you regarding David. When he committed murder and adultery, was David predestined to repent of these sins, or did he do it of his own volition (ie free will)? Did David really have a choice in the matter to repent? According to OSAS, he had no choice but to repent, as if he were programmed to do so. I have serious problems with that.

I think we are on a different wavelength about repentance. Repentance comes from the greek word metanoieo, and it means to "change your mind". It has no emotional connotation to it.

David confessed his sins because he responded to God's discipline. This is an old testament parallel to 1st John 1:9.

PSA 51:4 Against Thee, Thee only, I have sinned, And done what is evil in Thy sight, So that Thou art justified when Thou dost speak, And blameless when Thou dost judge.

God disciplines his children so that they will confess their sins and regain fellowship in time:

HEB 12:6 For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, And He scourges every son whom He receives. "

If God is outside of time, doesn't this therefore mean there is no time where God reigns, ie no time in Heaven?

Fred

I think that if that were the case, and one could look out of heaven to view creation, you would be able to view all of history in the same we scroll down these pages. To interact with history one simply picks a jump off point, and tweaks this or that. This immediately poses problems of being able to view yourself interacting with history in the first place all along the set time line.

Also, If heaven is outside of time it must logically be fully populated with the saved, where as it should be filling up as people die, effectively you are already in heaven, or not in my case

Essentially the free will and accountability problems manifest in/because of, heaven as well.

If God is outside of time, doesn't this therefore mean there is no time where God reigns, ie no time in Heaven?

Fred

Can eternity be measured with time?How would you go about doing so?

Earth:Our time is based on the speed and movement of objects. Earth makes a complete rotation in the 24 hours of time we use to measure it. And this 24 hours is divided by light and darkness. But heaven only has light.

Heaven:Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. 25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

Earth:Our planet spins.

Heaven:Is only discribe as being a city. A city that can be lowered onto earth. It does not say that it spins, or orbits anything.

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Revelation 211 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Earth:Notice in the last verse #4. The word death. We have death on earth. It is something that is expected after time.

Heaven:In that same verse it says there will be no death. No time=no death=eternity?

Then we have the time comparison, which was to make eternity more understood compared to heaven. Actually, it makes it more confusing to most.

II Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

But is it really an actual time comparison? Or does it go with that verse that talks about our time on earth being like a puff of smoke, only there for just a short while, compared to time in eternity?

OK, now that we’ve discussed this further, I’m now only 60-40 against OSAS

Sounds like your going back and forth like I used to at one time. But I prayed and ask God to show me wisdom in this. I was actually tired of the endless debates on this subject. What I was shown was a two fold truth. One where I not only found truth on this issue, but found it on another one as well. And whenever I faulter, I just remember that verse (1 John 1:5), and the verses that follow, and it makes me realize where God always stands. And what cannot be a part of Him.

1 John:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

These verses spell out the spiritual law of rightousness. They show exactly what can and cannot be mixed as far as God is concerned. And these verses also spell out that if we mix the darkness (sin and evil) with light (good, rightousness, and holiness), we are lying about the light (which is all that God stands for), and the truth about the light is not in us.

And in the last verse, it explains how we should try and walk, and be a good example of the light. These spiritual truths are not written to be just brushed over and explained away, as if they were some type of metaphore. These verses are plain and clear. To put it more plainly: Evil (darkness) cannot have fellowship good (light). If we say we are saved and live like a sinner with no remorse, we are lying about who we are, and what God is. For everyone that looks upon our lives, will judge God's ways as the way of evil. And in doing so will see no difference in how they are, compared to us, so why should they change? 1) Now we can do the same sins, but, we are now forgiven? 2) Or should it be that: when we sin, even though we strive not to, we are forgiven?

In the way that OSAS explains it. It makes it like the first question which makes God look like a part of evil (darkness). The second question still makes it true that we will sin, but it takes that sin and makes and puts it on us, until we confess and repent of it. You may have to read those two questions more than once to get the meaning. OSAS always makes it sound like it's ok to sin wilfully. And when preachers get behind the pulpit and preach this, it is wrong. And those three verses spell it out clearly. I have heard more than one OSAS preacher preach this way, so I know this is what's taught behind the pulpit about this subject.

People can believe whatever theology or doctrine they choose. But did God write His word for it to be the views of another we believe? When we say what we believe, then refer to a doctrine, is it the doctrine of God, or man? Who is really behind the doctrine? And if the doctrine teacher is wrong, and we believed it, who's fault is that going to be on judgement day? It's not a hard question if you think about it.

When we stand before God, we will be judge for our own sins. When a doctrine is found out to be wrong, we won't be able to claim that it's not our fault. Why? Because the bases for that doctrine is in a book we hold in our hands when we go to church. So what do you think God will say?..... You had my book, why did you not read it for yourself and allow me to guide you? Why did you believe this person, and not check it out for yourself, with the mindset that this person was right, even before you opened it? Is he God? For you cannot see the truth of my word, when the truth of another is already in you, and has been accepted by you in your heart.

Like I said in another post in this thread. If someone were to switch to non-OSAS, I would tell them to read more scripture, and pray for God to show the truth. You cannot rely on man to relay the truth. We make mistakes. And we don't need the mistakes of another added to what we are already being judged for, when it could have been corrected by our own action of what God already told us to do in his word. Read it.

Here is another post I made at another forum on this same issue. It's a little more clear on the point I was trying to relay.

A better example of this: I was raised in a baptist church. A church that taught that osas was fact. And that we could do whatever and never lose salvation (this was not to start a debate). It sounded not right. And without going into great detail, that would probably begin a debate, let's just say I sought a non-bias truth. A truth with an open mind, not a closed one. And most here know the conclusion I came to. But the conclusion is not what this post is about.

Whether you believe one way or another, was it firmly rooted in what you were taught, or what you confirmed? In other words, if you took away all that was said to you by someone on this issue, would your faith in it still be as strong?.... And it does not matter what you believe. If we do not rely more on what we comprehend, and what God would reveal to us, then what are we really relying on? What someone says the word of God says? Or what we actually see and read in the word of God?

Example: Let's say I was raised on non-osas belief instead of osas. And I believed that with my whole heart.... Now when I open the word of God, will my mind be more on making God's word mesh more with what I was taught, or finding what God wants to show me as I read His word? For if I'm really looking for truth, I cannot allow what someone else said to override what is truley written, and how the Holy Spirit may lead me, to guide me towards finding this truth. Because if I do, and it's wrong, what excuse would I have on judgement day before the one who will say: Why did you not listen? Why did you open my book with a closed mind and preconcieved ideas from another? I was trying to show you truth. But your mind and heart were closed to it.... What could I say? I would be speechless.

For how can God show us any truth, when we open His book with our preconcieved ideas of what everything is, what it means, even before we have read it ourselves? Can anyone say that they have never studied God's word without a preconcieved idea of what something already means? So if there is a truth that God would reveal to us, as we read what is written, how would it reveal itself, if our minds are already made up on what something is, or what something means? Would this be called trusting what God's word says, or trusting someone else's idea of what God's word is telling us?

That is what I was trying to get across. I think the only way truth will be found on this issue is if we are willing to wipe the slate clean on what we believe and start over. Allow God to lead us, and not outside influences.

This is how I found truth when all else failed. For it was a decision to either go with two different doctrines, or go it alone, and search for God's truth.

Cold, lukewarm, and hot. Are three spiritual levels in your walk with Christ. And because there is one that will seperate you, here again, it is shown there is free will to choose even after salvation. For if Christ is spueing you from His mouth, do you really think your salvation is still intact?

Salvation, yes.... Fellowship in time no. If Christ died for us so that we could be saved, then it would be a failure for God to allow us to live after the point in time we are saved. God's word teaches us that life will not seperate us form Christ:

ROM 8:38~39 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

By choice we seperate ourselves from Christ. Christ only rejects (spueing from His body) when our life does not reflect what Christ is all about. We sin wilfully as if Christ has no effect on our lives. Can Christ keep in His body what rebels* against it? Christ cannot contain in His body someone that insists on doing evil. We are not rejected eternally (forever), for it is we who have to come back to Christ. He will not return to us as a dog returns to it's vomit.

IMO, that's a total misapplication of that verse. It has nothing to do with Christ returning to us, but us returning to sin.

So I can sin to my flesh's content, and nothing will happen to me?

Accepting the truth of God's word about eternal security does not mean you can sin without consequence. That's a distorted view of God's grace, and is not what the doctrine of eternal security leads to. A complete understanding of scripture teaches that the child of God is under divine discipline when he sins(please see my answer to Fred's question about David), and can sin unto death if he does not confess and get back in line. But, in the end:

1CO 3:14 If any man's work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward.1CO 3:15 If any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire.

Where does it say that you can sin wilfully after being saved?

1CO 6:12 Ã‚Â¶ All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.

This is not a matter of "can", but its just a fact of life that christians willfully sin.

ROM 6:12 Ã‚Â¶ Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts,ROM 6:13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.

The born again brothers in Christ in Rome were letting sin reign in their bodies, and were presenting the members of their bodies as instruments of unrighteousness.

If they had lost their salvation becuase of the willfull sinning they were engaged in, then Paul would never had addressed them as:

ROM 1:7 to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

and he never would have said:

ROM 1:8 Ã‚Â¶ First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world.

Can God have evil in heaven? Being a child of God does not give the person the right ti dabble in sin "wilfully" and stay in God's will and never lose salvation.

You cannot loose your salvation. The bible says that we all sin, and if we say otherwise:

1JO 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

Paul said he was the worst of all sinners:

1TI 1:15 It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.

I am in "present tense"...... its indicative mode, which means its reality, its active voice which means he engaged in sin. Do you think he lost his salvation? Ever?

When Peter stood condemned for the legalism that Paul confronted him with, and was what caused him, and the rest of the Galations, to fall from grace, do you think he lost his salvation? An apostle?????

Now if you want to call all verses that go against what you believe about this metaphors, then that's your choice. I believe it is written quite clear on what is meant.Grace gives time, judgement is for eternity.

If God is outside of time, doesn't this therefore mean there is no time where God reigns, ie no time in Heaven?

Fred

Time is the process at which physical processes occur. God is not matter, so time does not apply to him, and no I dont believe time exists in eternity.

Just consider Gen 1:1,

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." God was obviously before the beginning of time, so he logically exists outside of time. Now I believe the Lord Jesus also exists in time as the revealed person of the God head, so he can move through time, but he also can exist outside of it.

Accepting the truth of God's word about eternal security does not mean you can sin without consequence. That's a distorted view of God's grace, and is not what the doctrine of eternal security leads to. A complete understanding of scripture teaches that the child of God is under divine discipline when he sins(please see my answer to Fred's question about David), and can sin unto death if he does not confess and get back in line. But, in the end:

1CO 3:14 If any man's work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward.1CO 3:15 If any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire.

This is where you're mixing two different judgements and mistaking them for one judgement. After you pass your first judgement at the saved throne of God. Then you are judged for your works. And because works cannot save you, works cannot condemn you as well. This is why you can be purified through the fire that burns up your works. This is because you have already been written in the book of life. Because Christ's blood blotted out your sins.

The reason you even get to the second judgement is because you past the first one. This is why the works judgement is different from the salvation one. And it all has to do with the blood of Christ blotting out your sins. Christ's blood allows sin to be blotted, which is what gets you into heaven. But, Christ's blood does not blot out our works. So your works have to be tested to see of what nature they are.

I'm going to explain this in detail, but keep it simple:

1) What was used as an atonement for sin before christ? A goat was considered a sin offering,2) What is now considered the sin offering? The "Lamb of God". Christ.

And what is the difference between the two?1) The goat offering is part the old convenant with God.2) The Lamb of God is the new convenant with the Son of God.

This is why Christ is called: The Lamb of God.

With me so far?-----------------------------When we reject the new convenant:

The spueing out of the body of Christ. Only the old convenant is left. The goat convenant. Problem is, it is no longer the atonement for sin. Being covered by the blood of Christ requires you to be in the body of Christ. Why? When your in the body, His blood flows around you and surrounds you. And everything is fine as long as you stay there.

But, when you deny Christ, you are spued from the body. The blood of Christ, no longer surrounds you. And when you go from the new convenant (being spued from the mouth), you end up in the old convenant. Don't believe me?

mt 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

How do you think Goats end up in front of the saved throne?

And why do the goats get thrown into the lake of fire?

heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

They stood before God with their sins intact, and is why they were cast into the lake of fire.The reason this is said, is again, the old convenant is no longer in effect. This is why this verse is worded this way:

gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Being justified by the law, is the old law of atonement for sin. Here it shows that when you fall from one convenant, you end up in the other.If one convenant has no effect, then the other is the only one left. This is why this verse is worded the way that it is:

jn 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Who's hand? Not Christ , which stands for the new convenant, but God the father which stands for the old convenant. If that verse would have said: "My Hand", then it would have been a reference to Christ and the new convenant.

So when we are spued from the mouth of Christ (the new convenant) we fall into the old. But in each convenant, we are still in God's hands on judgement day. And is why we will all still be judged at the saved throne. Both goats (those who rejected christ) and sheep (those who kept the convenant, or came back to it*).

And it will only be those at the great white throne who get judgement that is seperate, because they were never in God's hands. So they can't be taken out of, what they were never a part of. To be a part of something also means to leave it, you have to depart from it. And this is why this verse is worded this way.

mt 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

The reason God says: "depart from me", is because they were in God's hands. As the verse that OSAS uses to confirm what they believe. But remember, it is not Christ that has the hand control, it is God the Father. And this is made clear in that very verse. And when God releases them from His hand, it still confirms that verse. For God is not a man, so removal of them is not done by man. It is done by God, and is the reason the goats will say: But I did all these things in your name? Whos' name? Christ's name is who they were supposed to do it in. For we are under the new convenant, not the old. So when they say this, they are confirming who they thought the convenant was with. And when God says: I never knew you, God is also confirming who the convenant was supposed to be with (His Son). Which also confirms this verse:

jn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me (Christ speaking).

God the Father confirms this as He casts the goats into the lake of fire. And God's word even confirms who the convenant is with in this verse:

rev 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Who's book of life? The Lamb's book of life. Not God's. Here again it confirms who's convenant we have to be with. If we reject it. we are cut off because of what Christ says: No one cames to the Father, but by me.

* Now, can someone come back from the old convenant to the new?

James 5:19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;

20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

Remember, the word brethren means believer. So if a believer errs from the truth (becomes a goat), and one convert him back from the error of his way. Instead of his sins being intact (and shall hide a multitude of sins) in front of God. This person will have "saved" a soul from death.

------------------------------------------------

What is considered death of a soul?

The second death:

rev 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Is hell and the lake of fire different? Read revelation 20:14 above.

Added: You'll need to read this a couple of times to get it's meaning.

1) The first Judgment occurred in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve sinned and the judgment of death was passed upon the whole human race.

2) The second Judgment was when God laid upon Christ, the sins of us all at Calvary, and now all who come to God through Christ, stand in Christ's righteousness, and are brought back into fellowship with God.

Future judgements:

3) The third judgment is the seperation between the sheep and the goats. In order for this to happen, and the goats cast into the lake of fire, the book of life has to be opened. The one's that are not written, will be seperated from the ones who are. And when they try and claim they did works for God, they will confirm they rejected Christ, and God will say: Depart from me, for I never knew you.

4) The forth judgement is for those who went through the tribulation.

5) The fifth judgement is the great white throne judgement,

Now you know why I don't use man's doctrine. You can't make God's word mesh like this using man's views on what he thinks God is saying. You go to the source.

Added: After doing more research, I found there are seven judgements. You have the flood judgement, and the judgement at the mountain Moses recieved the ten commandments. Where the ground opened up and swallowed people who choose sin over the law. So you add these 2, to the five alread listed, you get seven.

Time is the process at which physical processes occur.Ã‚Â God is not matter, so time does not apply to him, and no I dont believe time exists in eternity.

Just consider Gen 1:1,

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."Ã‚Â God was obviously before the beginning of time, so he logically exists outside of time.Ã‚Â Now I believe the Lord Jesus also exists in time as the revealed person of the God head, so he can move through time, but he also can exist outside of it.

Terry

Nowhere in Gen 1:1 does it say God created past, present, and future. God created a mechanism for us to measure time (earth rotation), but that does not mean he created time. Again, my biggest problem with God outside of time (GOT) is there are no verses that even remotely claim this, plus it was a Platonic belief. I hate to sound flakely, but this is another doctrine I am not slam-dunk 100% on, but I am more convined GOT is wrong that OSAS is wrong.

So if time doesn't exist in Heaven, how do you explain this verse:

When He opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour. Rev 8:1-2

BTW, this verse also proves there are no women in heaven.

FredPS. Sorry that I cannot respond as often as I like. I'll try to get to as many other posts by you and Admin3 (and others) as I can. I particularly was intrigued by your verse supporting the idea Saul was saved. I'll have to study and ponder (yes, and pray) about that one...

I will try to spend some time reading through this debate, it is interesting, but for now I would have to say that to me, I don't agree with Mr. Enyart very much.

I think its a good challenge to use scripture to defend the attributes of God that I believe in, e.g. the imutability of God

HEB 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever.

but I tend to find arguments, like "pagans believe what you belive", as a little specious.Ã‚Â Its kind of like catholics persecuted people, so christians are bad.Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Just my opinion.....

Terry

As you are with OSAS, I believe immutibility is one of the easiest to disprove (finally a doctrine I'm not so flakey on ). I'm convinced its wrong. Why? For one, God became man. That is change. Two, God has emotions. There are tons of verses to support this. So his emotions change. Did you know staunch calvinists actually deny that God has emotion? They are so committed to the pagan greek philosophy of utter immutibility that they allegorize, or anthropomorphisize, all those verses. Verses that also have to be considered, but without the same slam-dunk force, are the verses where God "repents" (changes His mind).

The verses in the Bible about God not changing, all have to do with His attributes, such as His righteousness and holiness. We can count on God being faithful and true to His Word.

BTW, I just did a search of variations of the actual word immutability in the Bible, and only one place popped up:

Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us. Heb 6:17-18

This supports the interpretation that God is immutable in His Holy attributes. I believe we take it too far when we carry this in to other aspects, such as emotion, our free will, etc. It takes away from the living God, and makes Him more appear as a god of stone, the very idols God so ridicules and hates.

When a believer sins, he is under status quo "divine discipline" until he "confesses" his sins to God, as in 1st John 1:9. We can sin, and if we never confess those sins, then we may end up sinning unto death. That does not mean you loose your salvation, only your life in time, and possibly reward in eternity.

Let's consider Saul: Saul was a terrible believer, and he died sinning against God. What was his eternal fate?

1SA 28:16 And Samuel said, "Why then do you ask me, since the Lord has departed from you and has become your adversary?1SA 28:17 "And the Lord has done accordingly as He spoke through me; for the Lord has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, to David.1SA 28:18 "As you did not obey the Lord and did not execute His fierce wrath on Amalek, so the Lord has done this thing to you this day.1SA 28:19 "Moreover the Lord will also give over Israel along with you into the hands of the Philistines, therefore tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. Indeed the Lord will give over the army of Israel into the hands of the Philistines!"

Samuel told Saul that he was going to be "with him". Samuel was saved, and so Saul and his sons joined him in paradice when they died. Saul did not loose his salvation, and from what I can tell, he did not confess his sins before he died. I think we are on a different wavelength about repentance. Repentance comes from the greek word metanoieo, and it means to "change your mind". It has no emotional connotation to it.

This seems compelling and might be evidence that Saul was saved, but there is good reason to view this with caution. Was it really Samuel speaking to Saul, or a deceiving spirit? Note that Samuel is already with the LORD. It was a medium who brought up Samuel, yet we know mediums are of the devil. So we should rightly be very suspicious of this incident, and to me the very presence of this medium null and voids your argument. It may be correct, but I don't think it's a good idea to build a doctrine off of it.

This seems compelling and might be evidence that Saul was saved, but there is good reason to view this with caution. Was it really Samuel speaking to Saul, or a deceiving spirit? Note that Samuel is already with the LORD. It was a medium who brought up Samuel, yet we know mediums are of the devil. So we should rightly be very suspicious of this incident, and to me the very presence of this medium null and voids your argument. It may be correct, but I don't think it's a good idea to build a doctrine off of it.

Fred

Hi Fred,

This is really an interesting passage of scripture. IMO, I don't think she actually conjured up Saul. He asked her to, but she was shocked when Samuel actually showed up!

1SA 28:11 Then the woman said, "Whom shall I bring up for you?" And he said, "Bring up Samuel for me."1SA 28:12 When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice; and the woman spoke to Saul, saying, "Why have you deceived me? For you are Saul."

I think she normally would have had a demon pretend to be Saul, but this time the Lord actually did what she was not capable of doing.

Either way, its a moot point. There is no doubt in my mind that it was Samuel who told Saul he was God's adversary,

1SA 28:16 And Samuel said, "Why then do you ask me, since the Lord has departed from you and has become your adversary?

This seems compelling and might be evidence that Saul was saved, but there is good reason to view this with caution. Was it really Samuel speaking to Saul, or a deceiving spirit? Note that Samuel is already with the LORD. It was a medium who brought up Samuel, yet we know mediums are of the devil. So we should rightly be very suspicious of this incident, and to me the very presence of this medium null and voids your argument. It may be correct, but I don't think it's a good idea to build a doctrine off of it.

Fred

In the spiritual realm, there are two ways to access power. But, there is only one who controls this power. God. Need an example?

In the book of Job. Everytime satan wanted to do something to Job, he had to ask. Why? Job was a man of God. And satan knew he could do nothing to him without permission. Why? Satan actually says what the problem was. There was a spiritual hedge of protection around Job. Satan ask if that could be pulled back so Job could be tested.

What this shows is that whenever a child of God is involved, God has total control. Also when His hand of protection is on someone, only if he decides to lift it, can anything happen. The only one out of the three that was of God was Samuel. I believe the reason God allowed this to happen, the witch to bring up samuel, was to show what happens when you mix darkness with light. The curse that was spoken to Saul about what would happen to him came true. Decieving spirits don't tell the truth, unless made to do so by God.

So either way on this, God was in control of this situation. Plus, why would a decieving spirit ask: Why did you wake me from my sleep? All through the conversation, Samuel spoke truth. And God does not allow someone to be killed by the sword, unless they turned to evil. This was why the earth was flooded, and several people were killed by the sword. Balaam was one. He told the king how to currupt God's chosen. God paid him back for that curruption. Just as he paid Saul for rebeling against him.

If you look it up, God's words says that rebellion is of the spirit of witchcraft.

Nowhere in Gen 1:1 does it say God created past, present, and future. God created a mechanism for us to measure time (earth rotation), but that does not mean he created time.

Time is how we perceive things, and is known to be a part of the fabric of the universe, e.g. gravitational time dialation. Time did not exist until the universe was created, therefore, God existed before time exists. IMO, that's what it means to be eternal. I'm not saying that he created the future, only that when he created the universe, he knew everything that would take place. I admit, that this is what I've been taught, and I'm not prepared to defend it with scripture.

I'll work on it.....

Again, my biggest problem with God outside of time (GOT) is there are no verses that even remotely claim this, plus it was a Platonic belief. I hate to sound flakely, but this is another doctrine I am not slam-dunk 100% on, but I am more convined GOT is wrong that OSAS is wrong.

So if time doesn't exist in Heaven, how do you explain this verse:

When He opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour. Rev 8:1-2

Ok, this is a good point, but I did not say that time does not exist in heaven, and I did not say that God cannot also see things from the standpoint of time, only that he also exists outside of time, and I believe knows all things for all time.

Also, God knows He is relaying His message to those who only understand time, and cannot truly comprehend eternity. Can God comprehend time? Sure, He created it. So to relay what happens in heaven so we can comprehend, He would have to know just how we actually could comprehend it.

I think its worth pointing out that God the Son, took the form of man. God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit have always remained spirit beings, and have never changed, at least we have no documentation of it.

The Lord Jesus is the revealed person of the Godhead, from Genesis to Revelations. I'm not sure at what level we can say he's changed. He had a pre-incarnate form, and incarnate form, and a resurected form, but I think they are all essentially the same other than the wounds on his hands that I belive he still bears.

Two, God has emotions. There are tons of verses to support this. So his emotions change.

How do you know that they are not anthropopathisms?

Did you know staunch calvinists actually deny that God has emotion? They are so committed to the pagan greek philosophy of utter immutibility that they allegorize, or anthropomorphisize, all those verses. Verses that also have to be considered, but without the same slam-dunk force, are the verses where God "repents" (changes His mind).

I don't much about Calvanism, other than it denies free will and, IMO, distorts the doctrines of election and pre-destination.

That's one thing that I find odd about Mr. Enyart's table is that he categorizes Calvanism's attributes of God one way, and the open view another way, but to me that are all true.

The verses in the Bible about God not changing, all have to do with His attributes, such as His righteousness and holiness. We can count on God being faithful and true to His Word.

I agree with this totally, and was what I believe Heb 13:8 is stating.

BTW, I just did a search of variations of the actual word immutability in the Bible, and only one place popped up:

Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us.

Heb 6:17-18

This supports the interpretation that God is immutable in His Holy attributes. I believe we take it too far when we carry this in to other aspects, such as emotion, our free will, etc.That's an excellent verse.... We agree that God is Holy, but what does it mean to be Holy? I think his attributes are what make him what we are not, and they go far beyond morality.

Lets consider his omniscience. I belive omnicsience also implies foreknowledge:

PSA 139:16 Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Thy book they were all written, The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.

PSA 139:4 Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O Lord, Thou dost know it all.

ISA 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying,' My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';

His omnipresence:

PSA 139:7 Ã‚Â¶ Where can I go from Thy Spirit? Or where can I flee from Thy presence?PSA 139:8 If I ascend to heaven, Thou art there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, Thou art there.

I've read a good bit of the debate, and I think Dr. Lamerson has done a better job with scripture defending his position that Mr. Enyart. Mr. Enyart's posistion to me is kind of odd. He is attacking calvanism and using greek philosophy to do it, but that's irrelavent to scripture itself.

IOW, if you want to show that God doesn't know all things, then you need a statement saying such. Scripture seems to be heavily weighted against that idea, and the opinions of greek philosophers does nothing to help the case.

Both of you make good points regard 1 Sam 28. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve probably read through that passage of scripture at least over a half dozen times and that part of Ã¢â‚¬Å“you will be with meÃ¢â‚¬Â and its implications just never stood out for me before. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s amazing how you can read the same scripture many times and always find something new within it.

One last possibility, not that IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m trying to get Saul into hell J, is that before Christ came, hell and Ã¢â‚¬Å“heavenÃ¢â‚¬Â for OT believers were located in the same proximity (Ã¢â‚¬Å“AbrahamÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s bosomÃ¢â‚¬Â, Luke 16:22).

Whatever the case, I now think it is more likely that Saul went to heaven based on that verse. So it means he must have repented, and that does seem a reasonable possibility given his reaction to the appearance of Samuel. Otherwise, it would imply that God lets willfully unrepentant sinners in to heaven, but there are just too many scriptures that deny this (i.e. end of Romans 1, 1 John 1:8, just do a search on Ã¢â‚¬Å“repentÃ¢â‚¬Â). When we accept Christ we turn away from our old selves. This doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mean we stop sinning, even the same sins over and over again. But, Ã¢â‚¬Å“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.Ã¢â‚¬Â 1 John 1:9,10